KEY POINTS:
Swimmer Dean Kent was undoubtedly echoing the view of the vast majority of this country's Olympians when he spoke of being peeved that some people expect him to adopt a political stance in Beijing.
Athletes train for years for the opportunity to compete at the highest level and
think of little else. At any time, let alone the run-up to an Olympics, few immerse themselves in politics and fewer still imagine they have the expertise to deliver a valid opinion on issues such as human rights in China. All that, however, was no excuse for the New Zealand Olympic Committee to think that such utterances should be totally out of bounds. Freedom of speech demands otherwise.
The acknowledgment that the gag on athletes must be loosened did not come quickly. The committee mounted a rearguard action in defence of contracts that state that "athletes will not make statements or demonstrations (whether verbally, in writing or by any act or omission) regarding political, religious or racial matters, as such matters are contrary to the objects and purposes of the NZOC". Its main defence seemed to be that the muzzle had been in place for the previous two Olympic Games and had attracted no criticism. Why, then, the fuss now? Those Games were, of course, in Australia and Greece, countries that barely register on most human rights radars. The committee's contract safeguards had clearly been designed for venues that were more problematic.
Beijing fits that bill. The Chinese Government, intent on presenting a pristine image, is hypersensitive about any athlete, whether a superstar or an also-ran, publicly criticising its policies.
It has some cause to worry. Amnesty International is appealing to Olympic competitors to join its "Gold for Human Rights" campaign by wearing 'Free Tibet" T-shirts and suchlike in Beijing. China also knows the Olympics have always been a favoured arena for political statements, whether the raised black-gloved fists of Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos at Mexico City in 1968, the African boycott of the 1976 Montreal Games, or the tit-for-tat no-shows of the United States and the Soviet Union at the following Games in Moscow and Los Angeles.
The Olympic Committee says also that it was trying, in effect, to save this country's athletes from themselves by preventing their involvement in any repeat of such politicisation. That, however, led into untenable territory. Its muzzle went much further than the Olympic Charter, which states: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas".
Effectively, that bans political activity inside the Olympic zone. Outside this, free speech prevails. That is sensible on at least two counts.
First, it allows athletes who wish to talk about what they see in China or any other Olympic venue to do so. Secondly, it recognises that, legally, it would be highly problematic to gag an athlete outside the Olympic venues.
The Olympic Committee now proposes to bring its agreement with athletes into line with the Olympic Charter. That is sensible, and the change has only to be signed off by the Athletes Commission.
Whatever the apathy of most of its members, it will surely see the sense of bringing New Zealand back into line with the likes of the United States, Britain and Australia.
It will also know that, whatever the official protestations, the stricter ban was not really about protecting the athletes, or the interests of the committee and the Olympic movement. It was all about not embarrassing the Games' hosts, in this case the Chinese.
More fundamental principles are at stake here, however, and our sensitivities can extend only so far.
